If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Latest Lonely Planet guide throws shade on Edmonton

Who writes this stuff? I hope that there is some sort of formal response from the city incl. EEDC and DECL. Why do we always seem to get the short end of the stick while Calgary gets heaps of praise as usual. Lonely planet is a well used resource for travel planning by many people.

Who writes this stuff? I hope that there is some sort of formal response from the city incl. EEDC and DECL. Why do we always seem to get the short end of the stick while Calgary gets heaps of praise as usual. Lonely planet is a well used resource for travel planning by many people.

I don't know, but perhaps a former Calgarian now living in Toronto or somewhere else would be my guess. Whoever it is seems to have it in for Edmonton. It doesn't seem like they could be bothered to visit here for a while, so I am thinking the article was probably mostly cut and pasted from the previous edition with a few words changed to make it appear updated.

I called the city today and expressed my concern about a lack of response from our city leaders. Why don't we publicly stand up for ourselves and challenge the publication and author? Where was our cities response when the Globe and Mail referred to Calgary as the capital of Alberta? How about we demand a retraction and apology from the paper. We need to stop being the kid in the playground that constantly has sand kicked in their face. We need to stand up, push back and demand the respect that we DESERVE.

I called the city today and expressed my concern about a lack of response from our city leaders. Why don't we publicly stand up for ourselves and challenge the publication and author? Where was our cities response when the Globe and Mail referred to Calgary as the capital of Alberta? How about we demand a retraction and apology from the paper. We need to stop being the kid in the playground that constantly has sand kicked in their face. We need to stand up, push back and demand the respect that we DESERVE.

Oh I have given up on the Globe and Mail years ago. I used to care - when people used to think they were Canada's National Newspaper. Now, their best columnists work at the Toronto Star, which actually seems to sometimes write nicer articles about Edmonton.

I think there is a belief by some in Toronto that all the important business and other leaders in Alberta are in Calgary, so they have to suck up to Calgary big time. I honestly don't think they realize how annoying or ignorant they are to the rest of us and because they are the centre of the universe they don't really care.

Regardless of the source we still need to stand up and call them out on it.

Don't let me stop you. My observation over the years is the Globe and Mail clings to their stereotypes more than anything else, I doubt they will change I suppose some might call it lazy journalism. I think they mostly ignore us now and are retreating from national coverage to just focus on TO - maybe that's for the best. However, I would be glad to be proven wrong here.

^^ I agree Doug. I feel like whenever people talk about Edmonton they only highlight the negatives, "oh it's cold in the winter." Whereas whenever people talk about Calgary they only highlight the positives, "oh the Stampede is great." In reality every city in the world has both positives and negatives. Nobody ever mentions that the average temperature difference between Edmonton and Calgary is something like 1 or 2 degrees. Instead it seems like everyone wants to market Calgary as a tropical paradise or something.

It's so frustrating when I read article after article crapping on Edmonton because those publications only reinforce old stereotypes. But whenever we complain everybody responds, "well it's just a joke, calm down." Can you imagine if Calgary, Vancouver or (heaven forbid) precious Toronto were ever the butt of those negative articles? The entire country would be defending them but when it happens to us it's totally fine.

Edmonton is like the runt of the litter. No matter how much we grow and change and revitalize it goes unnoticed because we'll always be seen as the baby of the family.

It takes effort and time to change perceptions and some of the media old guard are not likely to change, but fortunately they do not control as much as they once did and there are new media and new people. Some of the old guard formed their views in the 1990's and early 2000's when Calgary was in the ascendancy. I would say things are more balanced now in Alberta, but the tired old stereotypes remain for some, probably especially for those that haven't visited Edmonton much in the last 10 years.

I agree the weather statistics don't support the cold stereotype. If there is a record cold day here it seems to get a lot of coverage in Toronto. If it is warmer here than Toronto (and that actually does happen) it seems like it is never mentioned - if it is cold in Toronto is is a "national cold snap" even when its minus 10 there and plus 5 here.

I suppose the lazy planet thinking is Edmonton is fairly far north on a map, so gee it must be very, very cold. Calgary is further south so it must be much warmer. Of course, western Canada weather doesn't exactly work like that - the mountains cause more temperature fluctuation in Calgary (colder at night than Edmonton on most summer days for instance), but lazy writers and journalists don't look that deep, they just repeat trope and stereotypes. Winnipeg is much further south than Edmonton, but its winters are colder than ours. I bet the lazy writers and journalists don't know that there is also an east/west temperature differential in the west.

Apparently our mayor asked the writer of this article to come visit here, as it seems Lonely Planet hadn't been here for a while. I wonder if they will bother to take him up on that offer.

The uncomfortable thing is that reviews like this do reveal the basic truth about the places visited, and also about both tourism and the attitude to it.

Edmonton is indeed a stopover city. We are in no way unique, except perhaps for the mall that makes the hip squirm; we are simply the intersection of all the lines on the map, whether northwest to Alaska, north/northeast to the tar sands and to the territories, west to the mountains and the coast, east to the vast open spaces, or south to the waste land. All of which for a variety of reasons are the destinations.

What does that mean? Precisely nothing to the content, and everything to the bored. Those of us who are happy to survive here have all we need, until we do not and want to leave. Or for that matter come back.

Nor does it mean much from the point of view of real economic development. Those who would build plants and hire workers here will or will not do so without ever thinking of the Lonely Planet or any other such outfit. Or even the Globe and Mail.

But that does not satisfy the tourist.

Edmonton would not satisfy us if we were the tourists.

But we care, or are made to care, because of the dollars the tourist represent, a rare chance to get back some of the capital we ourselves constantly pіss away by mail order and long-distance travel. We don't care about the tourists, or what they think about us; they will go home and drink the same coffee they drink here; we only care about the little bit of lucre they leave behind.

And that is the great and meaningless thing about tourist travel and everything around it. It is a first-world solution to first-world problems. It is to migration what first-world problems are to real global and personal crises.

The uncomfortable thing is that reviews like this do reveal the basic truth about the places visited, and also about both tourism and the attitude to it.

Edmonton is indeed a stopover city. We are in no way unique, except perhaps for the mall that makes the hip squirm; we are simply the intersection of all the lines on the map, whether northwest to Alaska, north/northeast to the tar sands and to the territories, west to the mountains and the coast, east to the vast open spaces, or south to the waste land. All of which for a variety of reasons are the destinations.

What does that mean? Precisely nothing to the content, and everything to the bored. Those of us who are happy to survive here have all we need, until we do not and want to leave. Or for that matter come back.

Nor does it mean much from the point of view of real economic development. Those who would build plants and hire workers here will or will not do so without ever thinking of the Lonely Planet or any other such outfit. Or even the Globe and Mail.

But that does not satisfy the tourist.

Edmonton would not satisfy us if we were the tourists.

But we care, or are made to care, because of the dollars the tourist represent, a rare chance to get back some of the capital we ourselves constantly pіss away by mail order and long-distance travel. We don't care about the tourists, or what they think about us; they will go home and drink the same coffee they drink here; we only care about the little bit of lucre they leave behind.

And that is the great and meaningless thing about tourist travel and everything around it. It is a first-world solution to first-world problems. It is to migration what first-world problems are to real global and personal crises.

Take it all with a deep breath -- and a grain of salt.

I think every place is unique - some places you have to dig a little deeper to find it, other places have certain things that might appeal more broadly to tourists. We don't have mountains nearby, but we do have a National Park about a half an hour out of the city, which is a great attraction, but could be overlooked by those only focused on the mountains to the west.

The two paragraph review (note: Calgary got only two paragraphs also) by Lonely Planet seems a bit shallow, so I wonder a bit about the writers and the readers of it. I suppose two paragraphs can give a sense of a place, but maybe not so well for those places whose charms are not as obvious or apparent.

While every place is unique, many major cities in Canada also have a lot of things that are the same. Is the Starbucks on Robson Street really better or that different than the one on Jasper Ave? Are the clothing stores in Pacific Centre that different from a mall in Edmonton?

I think in their defense I think Lonely Planet tries to find something distinctive about cities, but perhaps because they didn't dig very deep they didn't find it here and gave up and just wrote something that is not only not nice, but seems a bit off to those of us who know this city better.

I agree we shouldn't get too defensive about it - it is one person's opinion or review. Edmonton's identity or image is not as clear as other cities. We are a western city, but we are not a cowboy town. We are a somewhat northern city, but we aren't really in northern Canada. We are subtle and not easy for outsiders to figure out, but that doesn't mean we don't have attractions and charms. It just means they are sometimes overlooked.

The question is not whether the Starbucks on Jasper is better than the Starbucks on Robson, but whether Jasper or Robson is the more fun place to be. And the answer is a hard one.

As regards uniqueness... that's even harder.

I'll just say this: Edmonton has defeated better and stronger people than whoever wrote the Lonely Planet review. J. Morris comes to mind.

Oh, I chose Robson Street for a reason - lots of tourists love it, but a lots of locals detest it. I am not saying there are no fun streets in Vancouver, but I don't think the locals consider it a fun street.

My point was not whether or not we are a tourist destination, it is that we need to stand up for ourselves when lies and untruths are told about our city.

Yes. Some places are big tourist destinations, others not as much. For instance, say London or Las Vegas. The put a lot of effort into building the infrastructure to deal with and support tourism, but in very different ways. I suppose in London it sort of happened on its own - a lot of people have ties to Britain either through family or culture and the history draws a lot of people. Las Vegas is more self created although legal gambling existed there before people realized it could be such a tourist draw.

Tourism here is not huge main industry or a large percent of our economy so I think it sometimes leads us to ignore it because we can get by without it, but then Lonely or lazy Planet pops up like a big slap in the face to wake us up. Will we go back to sleep in a couple of weeks? Perhaps - that is a challenge for us.

I think the bigger issue for me is that Edmonton has lacked any sort of drive to any external focus on the item I believe is actually somewhat unique, the River Valley.
The valley is great for residents, but the pure lack of thought on how to appropriately add attractions to it that would make it something worth travelling to see still confuses me today.
Whyte Ave and Downtown are important to be lively and well developed, but every City has these. WEM at a time was somewhat unique, but in reality isn't any more. It's just large.
A River Valley that offers a great natural setting, useable waterway, serviced with commercial services at appropriate and well incorporated locations, some marquee developed locations like Rossdale, bolstered by the likes of Whyte, a vibrant Downtown, WEM, a generally nice, well maintained city with decent transit, that might actually be worth travelling for.
Edmonton has never taken tourism seriously or geared towards it, despite it being a major economic driver. As a result, this is a nice place to live with a income/expense ratio, but ultimately pretty interchangeable with anywhere mid-size city North America for an outsider.

There's a hundred cities with amazing river walks and amenities and you don't hear a thing about them. We could pave our river valley with gold and it wouldn't be a tourist attraction. It would just make it useful to us, and I'm OK with that. We should build things to make Edmonton great for us, and maybe those that visit will like it too.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

There's a hundred cities with amazing river walks and amenities and you don't hear a thing about them. We could pave our river valley with gold and it wouldn't be a tourist attraction. It would just make it useful to us, and I'm OK with that. We should build things to make Edmonton great for us, and maybe those that visit will like it too.

It's not just a river walk, I'm talking about. Even some of those you do hear about though when it's well done, San Antonio as an example.
You hear about lots of cities that build around their natural amenities, obviously Vancouver being the best at it. I'm not saying Edmonton is ever going to Vancouver, let me be clear. We also don't need to be gunning for that, but I still believe it's a missed opportunity both for locals to enjoy, as you said, and to create something worth travelling for.

Why do we always seem to get the short end of the stick while Calgary gets heaps of praise as usual. Lonely planet is a well used resource for travel planning by many people.

I don't think anyone actually chooses to visit a city because of a lonely planet write up, they use these books to decide where to go when they arrive. There are 13 pages on Edmonton per that article, the same as other Canadian cities. By whining about a few paragraphs, all it does, is turn a nothing that nobody would care about, into a big negative news story about Edmonton sucks, so it has to defend itself. I don't think that's very smart, your attitude is very small town / provincial, "how dare someone not like my city". People write negative things about London, and NYC, and Vegas all the time, but you don't see their mayors having to "defend" the place. Edmonton as a city can talk for itself, its a great city that offers so much to so many people. Its not the end of the world if some people don't think its the best place to hit as a tourist.

Why do we always seem to get the short end of the stick while Calgary gets heaps of praise as usual. Lonely planet is a well used resource for travel planning by many people.

I don't think anyone actually chooses to visit a city because of a lonely planet write up, they use these books to decide where to go when they arrive. There are 13 pages on Edmonton per that article, the same as other Canadian cities. By whining about a few paragraphs, all it does, is turn a nothing that nobody would care about, into a big negative news story about Edmonton sucks, so it has to defend itself. I don't think that's very smart, your attitude is very small town / provincial, "how dare someone not like my city". People write negative things about London, and NYC, and Vegas all the time, but you don't see their mayors having to "defend" the place. Edmonton as a city can talk for itself, its a great city that offers so much to so many people. Its not the end of the world if some people don't think its the best place to hit as a tourist.

No, my attitude is... "how dare someone not like my city... without giving it more than a mere passing glance or without providing any credible reason"

No, my attitude is... "how dare someone not like my city... without giving it more than a mere passing glance or without providing any credible reason"

But that's exactly what tourists do, they give cities a passing glance and form "first" impressions, not well informed ones re people who live there. I visited Hamilton, I thought it was interesting as I enjoyed looking at the steel mills, but it sucked as a tourist who isn't curious about traditional heavy industry. It might still be a great city to live in, I have no idea if it is or isn't. I know Edmonton is. Edmonton can take steps to be more desirable for visitors, but whining about one review just reinforces negative stereotypes that might already exit. Its like the headline "John smith isn't a rapist" - do you think more or less about John Smith?

Why do we always seem to get the short end of the stick while Calgary gets heaps of praise as usual. Lonely planet is a well used resource for travel planning by many people.

I don't think anyone actually chooses to visit a city because of a lonely planet write up, they use these books to decide where to go when they arrive. There are 13 pages on Edmonton per that article, the same as other Canadian cities. By whining about a few paragraphs, all it does, is turn a nothing that nobody would care about, into a big negative news story about Edmonton sucks, so it has to defend itself. I don't think that's very smart, your attitude is very small town / provincial, "how dare someone not like my city". People write negative things about London, and NYC, and Vegas all the time, but you don't see their mayors having to "defend" the place. Edmonton as a city can talk for itself, its a great city that offers so much to so many people. Its not the end of the world if some people don't think its the best place to hit as a tourist.

No, my attitude is... "how dare someone not like my city... without giving it more than a mere passing glance or without providing any credible reason"

Oh I think Calgary or other cities would be angry too by such a drive by or fly by slam. It doesn't seem very helpful either. I mean if you don't like cold weather say don't come here in winter, that might be more useful for travellers. This person doesn't say when they came or what temperature they found cold. It seems to be one persons opinion so who knows what their problem is - maybe they broke up with their girlfriend while they were here and that is why they were so cranky.

No, my attitude is... "how dare someone not like my city... without giving it more than a mere passing glance or without providing any credible reason"

But that's exactly what tourists do, they give cities a passing glance and form "first" impressions, not well informed ones re people who live there. I visited Hamilton, I thought it was interesting as I enjoyed looking at the steel mills, but it sucked as a tourist who isn't curious about traditional heavy industry. It might still be a great city to live in, I have no idea if it is or isn't. I know Edmonton is. Edmonton can take steps to be more desirable for visitors, but whining about one review just reinforces negative stereotypes that might already exit. Its like the headline "John smith isn't a rapist" - do you think more or less about John Smith?

We both know that this is not the ramblings of an ordinary "tourist". Your attitude is like many other Edmontonians, "who cares?". And that is exactly why we are in the position we are regarding our city's negative image as presented to those outside of our city.

We both know that this is not the ramblings of an ordinary "tourist". Your attitude is like many other Edmontonians, "who cares?". And that is exactly why we are in the position we are regarding our city's negative image as presented to those outside of our city.

Whining about a Lonley Planet write up isn't caring, its reinforcing negative stereotypes. If you care, the thing to do is to focus more on giving the City a better first impression, I'm not convinced its great bang for buck though, like it or not, Edmonton is never going to be on an international tourist trail, and there is no logical reason why it ever would be, anymore than somewhere like Canberra which nobody visits but is probably a fine place to live. I personally think the target audience to boost tourisim in Edmonton for that isn't Lonley Planet readers / hipster backpackers, its more local tourists in Alberta who are interested in concerts, and the mall, and other activities, that's where the opportunity lies to leverage, especially now with the Ice District.

We both know that this is not the ramblings of an ordinary "tourist". Your attitude is like many other Edmontonians, "who cares?". And that is exactly why we are in the position we are regarding our city's negative image as presented to those outside of our city.

Whining about a Lonley Planet write up isn't caring, its reinforcing negative stereotypes. If you care, the thing to do is to focus more on giving the City a better first impression, I'm not convinced its great bang for buck though, like it or not, Edmonton is never going to be on an international tourist trail, and there is no logical reason why it ever would be, anymore than somewhere like Canberra which nobody visits but is probably a fine place to live. I personally think the target audience to boost tourisim in Edmonton for that isn't Lonley Planet readers / hipster backpackers, its more local tourists in Alberta who are interested in concerts, and the mall, and other activities, that's where the opportunity lies to leverage, especially now with the Ice District.

Agreed. If someone from overseas is gonna spend a few grand to fly to Alberta and rent a hotel room for a few nights, Calgary is a logical destination, since it gives you all the amenities of a big city, with close proximity to the mountains. So what particular reason is there going to be to spend more time and money getting up to Edmonton?

As for registering a complaint with Lonely Planet, that just makes you look insecure, and is highly unlikely to change the view of anyone at their offices.

I personally think the target audience to boost tourisim in Edmonton for that isn't Lonley Planet readers / hipster backpackers

I do think there is a bit of a market for the hipster/backpacker crowd, but centred around specific events like the Folkfest and the Fringe. And maybe a limited amount of eco-tourism, focusing on the river valley and whatnot(another reason to keep the beach out, imho). But the city is never going to be the kind of place whose very name draws hip youth, like San Francisco or Seattle.

No, my attitude is... "how dare someone not like my city... without giving it more than a mere passing glance or without providing any credible reason"

But that's exactly what tourists do, they give cities a passing glance and form "first" impressions, not well informed ones re people who live there. I visited Hamilton, I thought it was interesting as I enjoyed looking at the steel mills, but it sucked as a tourist who isn't curious about traditional heavy industry. It might still be a great city to live in, I have no idea if it is or isn't. I know Edmonton is. Edmonton can take steps to be more desirable for visitors, but whining about one review just reinforces negative stereotypes that might already exit. Its like the headline "John smith isn't a rapist" - do you think more or less about John Smith?

We both know that this is not the ramblings of an ordinary "tourist". Your attitude is like many other Edmontonians, "who cares?". And that is exactly why we are in the position we are regarding our city's negative image as presented to those outside of our city.

Maybe I look at it a bit different than some tourists. I actually went to Hamilton briefly some years ago , I had relatives there at the time, they showed me around the area. I thought it was quite nice on the whole. Yes, there is the big steel mill, but if you can get past the very obvious and superficial it was fine. My relatives lived in a very nice area close to the escarpment - beautiful park land there. I thing one of the tourist traps is to fall for stereotypes and not get past the superficial. Maybe Lonely Planet is glib and superficial, but I don't think that helps travellers go to new places or have new experiences or broaden their horizons. I don't know, maybe that is all their readers want, but I think many travellers would want a bit more.

Lately you can find many articles and travel guides (search this forum) praising the many positives of Edmonton.

So I don't care about the opinion of one mystery writer from Lonely Planet.

But I agree with Iveson over the statement about Fort McMurray:

The guide also lauds Calgarians “self-love and can-do attitude” that got them through the 2013 flood and in 2016 “saw them helping residents of wildfire-stricken Fort McMurray with unquestioning generosity,” but it fails to mention the role Edmontonians played in providing support for those who escaped the fire.

Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson said the part of the travel book that “really hurts” is the omission by the author of Edmonton’s and other northern communities’ contribution during Canada’s most devastating wildfire.

I'm actually wondering if the writer had somehow confused the Fort MacMurray fires with the southern Alberta floods of 2013, in which Calgary would obviously have played a pre-eminent role, by virtue of geography alone.

I'm actually wondering if the writer had somehow confused the Fort MacMurray fires with the southern Alberta floods of 2013, in which Calgary would obviously have played a pre-eminent role, by virtue of geography alone.

I'm actually wondering if the writer had somehow confused the Fort MacMurray fires with the southern Alberta floods of 2013, in which Calgary would obviously have played a pre-eminent role, by virtue of geography alone.

Nothing wrong with praise to Calgarians for their Ft McMurray help.

^Is that sarcastic?

The point is there was no mention of Edmonton's assistance during the Fort Mac wildfire evacuation.

Iveson:

“I mean, Calgary and all of this province stood up in a big way during the Fort Mac fires, but somebody should ask Melissa Blake who really stood up because it was northern Alberta communities from Boyle to Lac La Biche and yes, Edmonton, that took the largest numbers of people and quite often the people in the most distress and had the least support and means.

“I can abide all the other mistakes, but that one is a bit of an insult to the generosity of Edmontonians and northern Albertans.”

I'm actually wondering if the writer had somehow confused the Fort MacMurray fires with the southern Alberta floods of 2013, in which Calgary would obviously have played a pre-eminent role, by virtue of geography alone.

Nothing wrong with praise to Calgarians for their Ft McMurray help.

^Is that sarcastic?

The point is there was no mention of Edmonton's assistance during the Fort Mac wildfire evacuation.

Iveson:

“I mean, Calgary and all of this province stood up in a big way during the Fort Mac fires, but somebody should ask Melissa Blake who really stood up because it was northern Alberta communities from Boyle to Lac La Biche and yes, Edmonton, that took the largest numbers of people and quite often the people in the most distress and had the least support and means.

“I can abide all the other mistakes, but that one is a bit of an insult to the generosity of Edmontonians and northern Albertans.”

Should there have been mention in the Edmonton piece? Do we need to be publicly thanked for any help we offered? Where does it stop?

As for me, I made donations but I didn't open my house to any fleeing residents so I'm quite fine not receiving any praise. I'd like to see those that really stepped up to help, get some praise but Edmontonians in general? Praising all Edmontionians, including me, would only serve to make me feel like a freeloader.

In terms of this publication, what's done is done. So what lessons can be learned to avoid such situations in the future? Maybe big signs as one comes into the city that would highlight our history of volunteerism? Maybe better and direct communication with any and all such writers?

If I was a travel writer I'd poke the thin-skinned Edmonton bear every chance I could. Free publicity on the back of our civic insecurities & bizzare fundamental need for external approval!

Maybe you aren't thin skinned and don't mind insults and stereotypes. In the read world those that insult and pick on those that are insulted and picked on are called bullies. I understand they enjoy piling on.

Modern, spread out and frigidly cold for much of the year, Alberta’s second-largest city and capital is a government town that you’re more likely to read about in the business pages than the travel supplements.

This is entirely factual, though not the nicest spin.

Edmonton is often a stopover en route to Jasper National Park, which is four hours' drive west, or for explorations into the vast and empty landscape to the north.

Another entirely factual statement. We've called ourselves "Gateway to the North" for years.

Downtown is for the moneyed and the down-and-out. There's hope that the much-lauded Rogers Place will breathe life into it, but this seems like a tall order.

See the threads on the luxury condos, the concentration of social services & the vacant storefronts on 104th for context on this, but once again this is a pretty on-the-nose depiction of Downtown Edmonton.

For the soul of the city, head south of the river to the university district and happy-go-lucky Whyte Ave, home to small theaters, diners and a spirited Friday-night mood.

That's an apt description of Whyte Ave.

Edmonton also has a few decent museums, an annual fringe festival second only to Edinburgh's, and some top nearby sights like the Ukrainian Cultural Village and Elk Island National Park.

Yep.

I get that it's not a rousing endorsement, but it's accurate. I don't see any part that's deliberately insulting or picking on the city, though I can see how some of you with glued-on rose coloured glasses might take offense.

So it's not so much the thin-skin & more the sense of entitlement? Calgary got something, so we should get it too?

Calgarians aren’t known for their modesty; it’s their self-love and can-do attitude that got them through disastrous flooding in 2013 and, in 2016, saw them helping residents of wildfire-stricken Fort McMurray with unquestioning generosity.

The sentence is about Calgary's attitude & how it got them through two crises. It's an easy segue to make for a travel writer, especially one who's not well-versed in the historical slapfight which is the Edmonton-Calgary rivalry. We got a decent, factual write up. So did Calgary. Move on. Outside of the manufactured outrage this means exactly squat.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Modern, spread out and frigidly cold for much of the year, Alberta’s second-largest city and capital is a government town that you’re more likely to read about in the business pages than the travel supplements.

This is entirely factual, though not the nicest spin.

Edmonton is often a stopover en route to Jasper National Park, which is four hours' drive west, or for explorations into the vast and empty landscape to the north.

Another entirely factual statement. We've called ourselves "Gateway to the North" for years.

Downtown is for the moneyed and the down-and-out. There's hope that the much-lauded Rogers Place will breathe life into it, but this seems like a tall order.

See the threads on the luxury condos, the concentration of social services & the vacant storefronts on 104th for context on this, but once again this is a pretty on-the-nose depiction of Downtown Edmonton.

For the soul of the city, head south of the river to the university district and happy-go-lucky Whyte Ave, home to small theaters, diners and a spirited Friday-night mood.

That's an apt description of Whyte Ave.

Edmonton also has a few decent museums, an annual fringe festival second only to Edinburgh's, and some top nearby sights like the Ukrainian Cultural Village and Elk Island National Park.

Yep.

I get that it's not a rousing endorsement, but it's accurate. I don't see any part that's deliberately insulting or picking on the city, though I can see how some of you with glued-on rose coloured glasses might take offense.

I think the first part is most offensive. Exactly what temperature is "frigidly cold"? That seems vague and highly subjective to me rather than a "fact". I bet someone living in Hawaii would have a completely different answer from somewhat living in Yellowknife. Also how long is "most of the year". If you live here, you would know the average temperatures do differ by month considerably even in winter. The average weather in March is not the same as in January. Again, too vague to be considered a "fact".

A tourist might want to know what vague area the writer is referring to as "downtown" I realize it is a debatable point, but a lot of people here would consider say Oliver to be downtown too. I don't think that area is full of moneyed and down and out people. As for the "tall order" comment, again clearly the writers opinion and not a "fact"

Yes, we do call ourselves "Gateway to the North", but I have NEVER heard an Edmontonian refer to us as "The stopover to Jasper". Strike three already - your OUT, but if you want to continue ...

I wouldn't refer to Whyte Ave as the "soul" of the city, but yes it often is a lively area on a Friday evening. However there are a number of bars and restaurants downtown that are likely to be busy on a Friday evening too. Maybe 50/50 on this one.

The 'few" decent museums comment seems a bit mean spirited to me - some or several might also be applicable, but would sound more generous. Again the comment is quite vague. I am not sure which museums are decent and which are not or if he is just saying there are only a few here.

I guess not everyone just "stops over" to go to Jasper, so mentioning Elk Island Park and the Ukrainian Village which are in the other direction sort of contradicts the earlier comment. However, this wouldn't necessarily be clear to a prospective visitor who didn't know which attractions were east (Elk Island and the Villange) and west (Jasper) of the city. It's hard to stop over and go in the opposite direction at the same time. I think when one does that it actually is a visit rather than a stop over.

So it's not so much the thin-skin & more the sense of entitlement? Calgary got something, so we should get it too?

Calgarians aren’t known for their modesty; it’s their self-love and can-do attitude that got them through disastrous flooding in 2013 and, in 2016, saw them helping residents of wildfire-stricken Fort McMurray with unquestioning generosity.

The sentence is about Calgary's attitude & how it got them through two crises. It's an easy segue to make for a travel writer, especially one who's not well-versed in the historical slapfight which is the Edmonton-Calgary rivalry. We got a decent, factual write up. So did Calgary. Move on. Outside of the manufactured outrage this means exactly squat.

It would also be fairly easy for a supposed "travel writer" to look at a map and realize Edmonton is much closer to Fort McMurray than Calgary and perhaps consider all the evacuees did not fly over Edmonton (or "stop over") on the way to Calgary, yee haw!! Yes, that might take a bit of thought and effort, so its not surprising we might then conclude that is lacking in this piece.

I think the first part is most offensive. Exactly what temperature is "frigidly cold"? That seems vague and highly subjective to me rather than a "fact". I bet someone living in Hawaii would have a completely different answer from somewhat living in Yellowknife. Also how long is "most of the year". If you live here, you would know the average temperatures do differ by month considerably even in winter. The average weather in March is not the same as in January. Again, too vague to be considered a "fact".

We're colder than the vast majority of inhabited places on this planet. Most people, given their druthers, prefer to live in warmer climates than we do. Just because you or I find it tolerable doesn't make it any less relatively cold compared to just about everywhere else people choose to live & that's a fact.

Originally Posted by Dave

A tourist might want to know what vague area the writer is referring to as "downtown" I realize it is a debatable point, but a lot of people here would consider say Oliver to be downtown too. I don't think that area is full of moneyed and down and out people. As for the "tall order" comment, again clearly the writers opinion and not a "fact"

This is the introduction, not a goddamn geography primer.

Originally Posted by Dave

Yes, we do call ourselves "Gateway to the North", but I have NEVER heard an Edmontonian refer to us as "The stopover to Jasper". Strike three already - your OUT, but if you want to continue ...

I wouldn't refer to Whyte Ave as the "soul" of the city, but yes it often is a lively area on a Friday evening. However there are a number of bars and restaurants downtown that are likely to be busy on a Friday evening too. Maybe 50/50 on this one.

Why would someone who lives here call it a stopover to anywhere? Is your house a stopover to Jasper? No. Way to be obtuse.

Originally Posted by Dave

The 'few" decent museums comment seems a bit mean spirited to me - some or several might also be applicable, but would sound more generous. Again the comment is quite vague. I am not sure which museums are decent and which are not or if he is just saying there are only a few here.

I guess not everyone just "stops over" to go to Jasper, so mentioning Elk Island Park and the Ukrainian Village which are in the other direction sort of contradicts the earlier comment. However, this wouldn't necessarily be clear to a prospective visitor who didn't know which attractions were east (Elk Island and the Villange) and west (Jasper) of the city. It's hard to stop over and go in the opposite direction at the same time. I think when one does that it actually is a visit rather than a stop over.

Thanks Dave, for being the very model of the thin-skinned, easily offended & hopelessly insecure Edmontonian. I needed a good laugh.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

I think the first part is most offensive. Exactly what temperature is "frigidly cold"? That seems vague and highly subjective to me rather than a "fact". I bet someone living in Hawaii would have a completely different answer from somewhat living in Yellowknife. Also how long is "most of the year". If you live here, you would know the average temperatures do differ by month considerably even in winter. The average weather in March is not the same as in January. Again, too vague to be considered a "fact".

We're colder than the vast majority of inhabited places on this planet. Most people, given their druthers, prefer to live in warmer climates than we do. Just because you or I find it tolerable doesn't make it any less relatively cold compared to just about everywhere else people choose to live & that's a fact.

Originally Posted by Dave

A tourist might want to know what vague area the writer is referring to as "downtown" I realize it is a debatable point, but a lot of people here would consider say Oliver to be downtown too. I don't think that area is full of moneyed and down and out people. As for the "tall order" comment, again clearly the writers opinion and not a "fact"

This is the introduction, not a goddamn geography primer.

Originally Posted by Dave

Yes, we do call ourselves "Gateway to the North", but I have NEVER heard an Edmontonian refer to us as "The stopover to Jasper". Strike three already - your OUT, but if you want to continue ...

I wouldn't refer to Whyte Ave as the "soul" of the city, but yes it often is a lively area on a Friday evening. However there are a number of bars and restaurants downtown that are likely to be busy on a Friday evening too. Maybe 50/50 on this one.

Why would someone who lives here call it a stopover to anywhere? Is your house a stopover to Jasper? No. Way to be obtuse.

Originally Posted by Dave

The 'few" decent museums comment seems a bit mean spirited to me - some or several might also be applicable, but would sound more generous. Again the comment is quite vague. I am not sure which museums are decent and which are not or if he is just saying there are only a few here.

I guess not everyone just "stops over" to go to Jasper, so mentioning Elk Island Park and the Ukrainian Village which are in the other direction sort of contradicts the earlier comment. However, this wouldn't necessarily be clear to a prospective visitor who didn't know which attractions were east (Elk Island and the Villange) and west (Jasper) of the city. It's hard to stop over and go in the opposite direction at the same time. I think when one does that it actually is a visit rather than a stop over.

Thanks Dave, for being the very model of the thin-skinned, easily offended & hopelessly insecure Edmontonian. I needed a good laugh.

I don't think a reasonable rebuttal, point by point is at all thin skinned, but nor do I think vague comments are "facts". I realize many find certain months here cold, but that is not the same as saying most of the year. A lot of people even from tropical climates find out spring, summer and falls (ie. most of the year) relatively pleasant.

We can debate opinions all day, but that doesn't make them "facts" and that is where I disagree most. The article was the subjective opinion of the writer and I don't think it accurately reflects the city.

I don't think a reasonable rebuttal, point by point is at all thin skinned.

It's not the calibre or tone of your rebuttal (full of subjective assessments that happen to be contrary to the subjective assessments of the writer) that leads me to think you're thin skinned, but the fact that you felt hard-pressed to provide the rebuttal.

FFS, it's a travel book. It's not an encyclopedia. It's not even Wikipedia. None of it matters, whatsoever. What tourist is going to go "there's no mention that they helped out during the fire, scratch them off the list!"? Exactly none. Everyone's all worked up & taking offense at the most trivial, menial ******** all because they like someone else's blurb better. What petty, childish, insecure people from our terrible Mayor on down.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

I don't think a reasonable rebuttal, point by point is at all thin skinned.

It's not the calibre or tone of your rebuttal (full of subjective assessments that happen to be contrary to the subjective assessments of the writer) that leads me to think you're thin skinned, but the fact that you felt hard-pressed to provide the rebuttal.

FFS, it's a travel book. It's not an encyclopedia. It's not even Wikipedia. None of it matters, whatsoever. What tourist is going to go "there's no mention that they helped out during the fire, scratch them off the list!"? Exactly none. Everyone's all worked up & taking offense at the most trivial, menial ******** all because they like someone else's blurb better. What petty, childish, insecure people from our terrible Mayor on down.

Well perhaps I don't know what I am talking about, I have only lived here many years, but am apparently "thin skinned". In all probability a travel writer who spent a few hours or maybe a day here has a more accurate picture of things. Yes, that makes total sense. Hey why not call it a "fact" too?

No, I don't expect any of the level of detail of my rebuttal commentary in the guide. I only put it in to support demonstrate where the comments are not very accurate.

"I'm not thin-skinned or sensitive & here's a extremely detailed list as to why this paragraph in a travel guide has so deeply offended me & my sensibilities."

We certainly do get more positive coverage from the travel bloggers who we pay to come here. Whether that's "better" is purely subjective, but I'd take the Lonely Planet blurb over a bought-and-paid-for sponsored blogpost any day of the week.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

I think the first part is most offensive. Exactly what temperature is "frigidly cold"? That seems vague and highly subjective to me rather than a "fact". I bet someone living in Hawaii would have a completely different answer from somewhat living in Yellowknife. Also how long is "most of the year". If you live here, you would know the average temperatures do differ by month considerably even in winter. The average weather in March is not the same as in January. Again, too vague to be considered a "fact".

We're colder than the vast majority of inhabited places on this planet. Most people, given their druthers, prefer to live in warmer climates than we do. Just because you or I find it tolerable doesn't make it any less relatively cold compared to just about everywhere else people choose to live & that's a fact.

Originally Posted by Dave

A tourist might want to know what vague area the writer is referring to as "downtown" I realize it is a debatable point, but a lot of people here would consider say Oliver to be downtown too. I don't think that area is full of moneyed and down and out people. As for the "tall order" comment, again clearly the writers opinion and not a "fact"

This is the introduction, not a goddamn geography primer.

Originally Posted by Dave

Yes, we do call ourselves "Gateway to the North", but I have NEVER heard an Edmontonian refer to us as "The stopover to Jasper". Strike three already - your OUT, but if you want to continue ...

I wouldn't refer to Whyte Ave as the "soul" of the city, but yes it often is a lively area on a Friday evening. However there are a number of bars and restaurants downtown that are likely to be busy on a Friday evening too. Maybe 50/50 on this one.

Why would someone who lives here call it a stopover to anywhere? Is your house a stopover to Jasper? No. Way to be obtuse.

Originally Posted by Dave

The 'few" decent museums comment seems a bit mean spirited to me - some or several might also be applicable, but would sound more generous. Again the comment is quite vague. I am not sure which museums are decent and which are not or if he is just saying there are only a few here.

I guess not everyone just "stops over" to go to Jasper, so mentioning Elk Island Park and the Ukrainian Village which are in the other direction sort of contradicts the earlier comment. However, this wouldn't necessarily be clear to a prospective visitor who didn't know which attractions were east (Elk Island and the Villange) and west (Jasper) of the city. It's hard to stop over and go in the opposite direction at the same time. I think when one does that it actually is a visit rather than a stop over.

Thanks Dave, for being the very model of the thin-skinned, easily offended & hopelessly insecure Edmontonian. I needed a good laugh.

I don't think a reasonable rebuttal, point by point is at all thin skinned, but nor do I think vague comments are "facts". I realize many find certain months here cold, but that is not the same as saying most of the year. A lot of people even from tropical climates find out spring, summer and falls (ie. most of the year) relatively pleasant.

We can debate opinions all day, but that doesn't make them "facts" and that is where I disagree most. The article was the subjective opinion of the writer and I don't think it accurately reflects the city.

I spoke to two people from southern California who were visiting here back when Jimmy Carter was in town. It was the first time they were in Edmonton and they said that it was too hot for them because of the humidity and they weren't used to it.

Also, I was in Scotland, for six days, less than three weeks ago and I would honestly classify that country as cold. The reason for that is because even in early August it was quite chilly 20 degrees tops and only in the sun. In the shade it was more like 15 degrees and windy. I learned for a fact that Edmonton has nicer summers than Scotland but for some reason Edmonton is "frigidly cold" for "most of the year". And yes, I know our winters are colder than Scotland's but our summers are definitely hotter.

See, it's not that my feelings are hurt, it's that I have a hard time abiding misinformation. Lonely Planet was either being intentionally misleading OR they didn't do their research and went off of stereotypes and preconceived notions. Either way it looks bad on them but just because that's the case doesn't mean we shouldn't correct the wrong information. "But no! If you correct misinformation you're thin skinned! Why can't you just take a joke?!"

"I'm not thin-skinned or sensitive & here's a extremely detailed list as to why this paragraph in a travel guide has so deeply offended me & my sensibilities."

We certainly do get more positive coverage from the travel bloggers who we pay to come here. Whether that's "better" is purely subjective, but I'd take the Lonely Planet blurb over a bought-and-paid-for sponsored blogpost any day of the week.

I really didn't like the "frigid cold for most of the year part". In addition to the vagueness I detested, it seems the type of stereotyping that a lazy writer would fall back on. The rest of it was somewhat off, but did not "deeply offend" me.

I don't know about the paid writers. I think many cities do that. I read some nice reviews of Las Vegas by one of them and then I went there. I thought they were more accurate than this. I don't know, perhaps they are actually more professional in their writing and take it more seriously.

If Edmonton is "frigid cold for most of the year" then that can be said for every major Canadian city with the exception of Toronto and Vancouver. The average winter temperature in Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Montreal (along with the maritime cities) is within a couple of degrees of Edmonton in the winter. Should also be noted that most of those cities receive more snow than Edmonton on a yearly basis.

If Edmonton is "frigid cold for most of the year" then that can be said for every major Canadian city with the exception of Toronto and Vancouver.

So what? As a tourist, I think the prairie cities (Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Regina), will seem colder than many other Canadian cities, for the simple reason that the snow doesn't melt. You don't see snowbanks like Edmonton builds up, along with the associated dirt / sand, in Toronto or Calgary or Vancouver. Montreal and Ottawa get a bit, but for I know Lonley Planet might mention that.

If Edmonton is "frigid cold for most of the year" then that can be said for every major Canadian city with the exception of Toronto and Vancouver. The average winter temperature in Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Montreal (along with the maritime cities) is within a couple of degrees of Edmonton in the winter. Should also be noted that most of those cities receive more snow than Edmonton on a yearly basis.

What the heck is frigidly cold anyways? As you say, that would apply to every major city in Canada. I'd add that much of the northern states might qualify too.

As for noodles daft attempt at fact checking, north of us isn't vast and empty landscape.

Plus here's an interesting set of tables, so note the days over 20 degrees and over 30 degrees:

Also, another omission from the article is our useable summer sunlight hours with generally non-frigid temperatures during those sunlit hours. Head south and it both cools off in the summer evenings and gets dark. So this dramatically reduced the number of evening activities available.

Right now, just after 5 pm its 32 degrees C (89F) out and sunset isn't until 8:10 pm

In San Francisco it's just after 4 pm and 20 degrees C (68F) out with sunset at 7:28 pm.

If Edmonton is "frigid cold for most of the year" then that can be said for every major Canadian city with the exception of Toronto and Vancouver. The average winter temperature in Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Montreal (along with the maritime cities) is within a couple of degrees of Edmonton in the winter. Should also be noted that most of those cities receive more snow than Edmonton on a yearly basis.

What the heck is frigidly cold anyways? As you say, that would apply to every major city in Canada. I'd add that much of the northern states might qualify too.

As for noodles daft attempt at fact checking, north of us isn't empty...

I seem to recall Edmonton has more frost free days than Calgary. I am not sure if that might be a criteria for frigid cold or what is. I also seem to recall if you ranked the winter temperatures for the five biggest western Canadian cities from warmest to coldest we would be nearer to the top of the list (ie. warmer) than the bottom.

I think our distance north throws off some peoples perceptions, but being further west than some of these other cities makes the climate here a bit more moderate even though they are further south.

If Edmonton is "frigid cold for most of the year" then that can be said for every major Canadian city with the exception of Toronto and Vancouver.

So what? As a tourist, I think the prairie cities (Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Regina), will seem colder than many other Canadian cities, for the simple reason that the snow doesn't melt. You don't see snowbanks like Edmonton builds up, along with the associated dirt / sand, in Toronto or Calgary or Vancouver. Montreal and Ottawa get a bit, but for I know Lonley Planet might mention that.

So what? If you are going to write that comment about Edmonton then you better be prepared to write it about every other major Canadian city you do a review on. The FACT is Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City are every bit as cold as Edmonton and receive MUCH more snow. Look up the average temps for Dec, Jan and Feb.

Just to add that I don't find it odd that Lonely Planet would have a better description of the Whyte Avenue environment than it would DT Edmonton.

DT Edmonton is largely generic and featuring more of the chain restaurant/bar or standard type of fare. Plus the environment being a fairly tired looking DT that is still far from what would be considered attractive or appealing.

Whyte Avenue speaks more to the kind of place that Lonely Planet has made its living detailing. More the different path and pointing out the key features of a place that would be interesting to its readership. For instance Whyte Ave being much more eclectic, much more independents, aged, funky, servicing younger age group, party district, home of Fringe festival etc. Of course Whyte Avenue would play better to Lonely Planet than DT would. Anybody familiar at all with the publication, and what they tend to prefer, would not be surprised by that.

That said the point about Calgary helping out the Fort McMurray evacuees and not mentioning the prominent role Edmonton played is silly. They could at least get that right.

Last edited by Replacement; 08-09-2017 at 10:57 AM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

A few comments on the Calgary vs Edmonton comparisons. I've always found Edmonton is built on a more sensible, arable, flat land area and bordering on protective boreal forest. So that we have easily serviced city, good soil, growing conditions, better climate, shade, and easy area for transportation, infrastructure.

Calgary is an arid, foothills, dry, dead environment subject to flooding, massive drying and cull of any vegetation. Either way too much or too little precipitation. Thus everything looking dry and barren and bare hills all over the place. Of course if one comments only on Central Calgary near the bow one gets a much different impression of the area, landscape, or geography than one does say driving anywhere around the scorched foothill burbs. Really Calgary is essentially a bigger version of Kamloops. I don't mean well with that. I find Kamloops geography deplorable.

The reality is unless you live DT or centrally in Calgary you live in an arid foothills with barren bleached ground and everything requiring copious watering to grow anything. Or you are in valleys subject to flooding. Basically due to foothills geography and that theres is precious little soil or trees and water doesn't get absorbed, it just flash floods.

Calgary is a non ideal place for a City of over a million people and sprawled out like that. I kind of doubt that even the forefathers found much use in all those arid foothills in which even cattle grazing was difficult. But then the entirety of Southern Alberta is dry, parched, and a lot like Saskatchewan. Really a boring part of the province.

Last edited by Replacement; 08-09-2017 at 11:38 AM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Just to add that I don't find it odd that Lonely Planet would have a better description of the Whyte Avenue environment than it would DT Edmonton.

DT Edmonton is largely generic and featuring more of the chain restaurant/bar or standard type of fare. Plus the environment being a fairly tired looking DT that is still far from what would be considered attractive or appealing.

Whyte Avenue speaks more to the kind of place that Lonely Planet has made its living detailing. More the different path and pointing out the key features of a place that would be interesting to its readership. For instance Whyte Ave being much more eclectic, much more independents, aged, funky, servicing younger age group, party district, home of Fringe festival etc. Of course Whyte Avenue would play better to Lonely Planet than DT would. Anybody familiar at all with the publication, and what they tend to prefer, would not be surprised by that.

I agree. I prefer downtown(well, pretty much ANYWHERE in the city) to Whyte Avenue, especially the Old Strathcona strip. But you don't have to spend too much time sampling both locales to figure out which will be the bigger draw for twentysomething backpackers.

And people can post all they want about how many bars there are on Jasper and how busy they are, but let's be honest here: when you walk down the street at midnight even on a weekend, the vibe is dead. I think most people either drive to their preferred bar or walk from the local apartments, have a few drinks, and go home. There isn't a lot of bar-hopping or sidewalk socializing that goes on.

And like I say, that's fine by me, since I find going from bar to bar and social-butterflying on the front street exhausting. But that tends to be the kind of thing that the Lonely Planet crowd goes for.

If Edmonton is "frigid cold for most of the year" then that can be said for every major Canadian city with the exception of Toronto and Vancouver.

So what? As a tourist, I think the prairie cities (Edmonton, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Regina), will seem colder than many other Canadian cities, for the simple reason that the snow doesn't melt. You don't see snowbanks like Edmonton builds up, along with the associated dirt / sand, in Toronto or Calgary or Vancouver. Montreal and Ottawa get a bit, but for I know Lonley Planet might mention that.

So what? If you are going to write that comment about Edmonton then you better be prepared to write it about every other major Canadian city you do a review on. The FACT is Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City are every bit as cold as Edmonton and receive MUCH more snow. Look up the average temps for Dec, Jan and Feb.

Write that about every similar city? Not if you're a travel writer. That's why I think disappointments over these Lonley Planet write ups are only useful if we can change future such summaries. There's a randomness and bias to any such commentaries and they aren't analytical by any means despite the odd so called "fact".

I'm assuming that the Post mostly selected the negative reviews to highlight.

Well I feel a bit better, I guess its not just us. Maybe they mostly get the bitter, jaded and cranky as writers. I'm not sure what their expectations are, the Eiffel Tower in Cochrane or Kamloops, unicorns flying through the air in Kitchner?

Whenever I went downtown on the weekends in the last few months the bars on Jasper have seemed quite busy on the weekends. It's not a party street/continuous string of bars like Whyte Ave, but parts of downtown are reasonably busy. I don't think that's any different than the downtowns of most other cities. When I was in Vancouver, I went down Robson Street late on the weekend and saw only one or two bars/clubs that seemed busy. I think Jasper Ave has more.

Whenever I went downtown on the weekends in the last few months the bars on Jasper have seemed quite busy on the weekends. It's not a party street/continuous string of bars like Whyte Ave, but parts of downtown are reasonably busy. I don't think that's any different than the downtowns of most other cities. When I was in Vancouver, I went down Robson Street late on the weekend and saw only one or two bars/clubs that seemed busy. I think Jasper Ave has more.

But I think that what young travelers generally want is the "party street" that you reference Whyte Avenue as being.

I used to drink quite a bit at the Rose Bowl back in the day, and it was basically just a neighbourhod pub, pulling in residents from the nearby apartments. Nobody ever said "Hey, after we're finished here, let's traipse over to the Gas Pump and see who's there." People weren't heading to downtown bars in search of an adventurous night on the town.

Truth be told, I wasn't too bothered with their description of Edmonton. Most things are subjective anyways. I love living here but visiting...would hardly be my first choice.

It's only infuriating when you read the Calgary description. Having visited Calgary (never lived there), I feel they're no different from Edmonton. Only advantage (to me) is that they are closer to the mountains. You'd think you were reading something about Siberia in the middle of winter and Orlando during the Mardi Gras or something.

The review of Edmonton was obviously slanted and ill-researched and shows the historical review process of this publication to not do any full real research into designations that they review. To comment on the cold weather as it is something only Edmonton suffers or to compliment Calgary for its volunteer spirit and fall silent on Edmonton's contribution is really sad. As a result, I would not ever buy one of their publications as they do not seem to provide good unbiased travel advice. I did, however, take a peek at their website which I encourage you to do. Their web page for "North America" shows all the top selections in the continent are all in the US. Sounds pretty biased to be. Also, when you drill down into their web pages on Canada, there are some huge glaring omissions. Not the least of which is that Toronto is not mentioned anywhere. It is not highlighted as a top city nor even listed in the top ten cities to visit. Given that they cannot even recognize that glaring omission seems to me their whole organization is fundamentally flawed.

Lonely Planet's largest readership block is supposedly Europeans. Clearly whoever did their writeup hasn't been to Edmonton recently. If they are only devoting a few measly paragraphs I'm not surprised that their impressions are superficial and inaccurate.

Travel publication writes something unflattering about the city.
People are publicly outraged.
Mayor makes a statement about it.
Other media picks up story with headlines like "Edmontononians upset Lonely Planet calls Edmonton Frozen Wasteland"
People in other cities see headline, don't read story and haven't read Lonely Planet article.
Part that sticks in their mind? Edmonton = Frozen Wasteland.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you're upset about it, send them a private message. Contact the mayor and encourage them to do the same. The coverage of the outrage is doing more harm than the original article.

Streisand effect

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware something is being kept from them, their motivation to access and spread the information is increased.

Lonely Planet's largest readership block is supposedly Europeans. Clearly whoever did their writeup hasn't been to Edmonton recently. If they are only devoting a few measly paragraphs I'm not surprised that their impressions are superficial and inaccurate.

I seldom visit Calgary,. I find the people cold and the city expensive.

I find Calgarians to be generally arrogant and smug about themselves. That's the comment in Lonely planet about Calgarians being modest is an absolute joke. The other comment about our downtown being for the "moneyed" is also weird because if any downtown in Alberta comes across as being for the moneyed it would be Calgary - with it's half empty office towers....

I seldom visit Calgary,. I find the people cold and the city expensive.

I find Calgarians to be generally arrogant and smug about themselves. That's the comment in Lonely planet about Calgarians being modest is an absolute joke. The other comment about our downtown being for the "moneyed" is also weird because if any downtown in Alberta comes across as being for the moneyed it would be Calgary - with it's half empty office towers....

We lived there, and I simply didn't feel at home, ever.
Edmonton has been my home for a long time,but its changing, and we didnt like what we saw. Hence the move .